perpetual california drought

This guy,

George H.

Right the negative spots are where the earth is still springing back from the last ice age. If we were/are headed into another ice age, don't you think that is something we should study and try and figure out? Another ice age would be worse than some warming.

George H.

Immensely worse. A few more degrees c might be net beneficial, but an ice age would kill off most of the human and animal life on the planet.

The average state of the planet is a lot colder than what we have now.

That's scary. The short-term solar cycle thing is scary, too.

There's nothing simple about the state of Earth's climate. It's erratic and chaotic and unpredictable, except for a few periodic forcings.

- show quoted text -

No he won't - he'll realise that he got it wrong (again).

Granting the reliability of Jim's opinions, this is a ringing endorsement - one of many.

Mind you, it's not what it was when H.S. Johnston was teaching there.

Umm, OK, but still that is not something we should try and study? It might be that we want to burn more coal and less methane.

George H.

e:

pt as

And

ising,

r-IR,

We've been having regular ice age for the last few million years - roughly one ever 100,000 years - and they last longer than interglacials.

Modern humans evolved during the last one, so it didn't kill us off then, a nd most species seem to be able to survive them.

Sure. That's the last couple of ice ages. If you look over longer periods, the ice ages are unusually cold.

Anything you don't understand is scary, and John Larkin understands very li ttle.

The sunspot cycle record isn't in the least scary, because most of us know that it has very little to do with the temperature of the earth, or anythin g else much that matters to us, even if John doesn't.

Even if John Larkin doesn't know about it - and can't be told, presumably b ecause he doesn't want to know, we now have a pretty exact idea of what goe s on when the earth switches between an ice age - with lots of ice and snow cover on the norhtern parts of the norther hemisphere , and about 180 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and an interglacial where the Laurentian and similar ice sheets have slid away and the atmospheric CO2 level is up to about 270 ppm.

Now that we've got atmospheric CO2 levels up to 400ppm we aren't going to h ave an ice age for quite a few thousand years now, even if John Larkin can' t follow the reasoning.

Bill hath not the skillset >:-} ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

ys are

who

adge

ck.jpg

tual

and_Wales.png

and.png

Why would one need milli-Kelvin accuracy? Oxygen isotope ratios in fossil w ater are precise enough, and have been evaluted from ice cores and stable s ediment layers.

The fact that it's a balance between the heat input from the sun and the he at radiated by whatever the layer of the atmosphere is the effective radiat ion layer for a particular infra-red wavelength is simple enough - Fourier got his head around it in 1824.

Getting all the detailed information together to work out exactly what's go ing on has taken a while, but the global average is both stable and predict able.

What it means for the climate at a particular point on the surface of the p lanet is less predictable - the heat flow from the equator to the poles has a fairly stable general form, but it is chaotic in the short term, though the longer-term averages are rather more stable.

John Larkin refuses to think about what's going on in any particular detail , preferring to confuse weather and climate and write both off as chaotic a nd unpredictable, despite the fact that farmers have been predicting climat e reliably enough since we invented agriculture, some ten thousand hears ag o.

Sloman? He can't even build a simple oscillator.

Like this...

Sugar Bowl has announced that they are extending the ski season into May. That will put a lot of miles onto my season pass.

"This has been a truly historic season. Now officially coined by national weather forecasting agencies as, "the wettest winter in the Northern Sierra in over a century with 90" of water breaking the standing 1982-83 season record," this is truly one for the record books. It's hard to believe that we are now at 783" of snowfall, unless of course you've recently skied Silver Belt Gully and realized, that with 60 feet of snow, it's no longer a gully!"

They just don't make perpetual like they used to.

People on the left realize that it's a little more complicated than humans being robotic Bayesian utility-maximizers. You learn about stuff like that after you're done with grade school.

In addition, it's a little silly in general to ask questions of a political philosophy that takes a hardline me-first approach to politics and economics on advice on how to "best" organize a society for everyone. A bit like asking the Devil on advice on how to avoid sin - as you say there isn't much "incentive" to ever give a straight answer on how say reduced taxes will benefit me as much as they benefit you.

The real problem with the American fashion of conservatism is the "academic conservatives" who pontificate about things like the "free market" and other ideological topics are bound at the hip with the nationalist-race-war side of conservatism, whose primary concern is having a whites-only country, and don't particularly care what type of market ideology it subscribes to. Socialist, fascist, controlled-economy, whatever it's all good so long as it's white-only.

You both need each other like peas and carrots, and the fact that you'll so readily jump into bed with the fascist wing to get what you want does indeed makes liberals believe that this "free market" academic stuff is all a pretext, you don't really believe any of it, so why even listen.

Basically you make the #1 mistake of psychology/profiling in extrapolating your own pondering out into the conclusion that other people are just like you, and have the same motivations as you. They aren't. And they don't.

Nonsense. Accuracy is a NUMBER not a true/false quality. Weren't you quoting accurate temperatures from isotopic studies in ancient ice, not long ago? Tree rings and thermometers and isotopes and a hundred other things, all correlate. That's a cross-check that says the accuracy is fine.

So what? We still have to deal with the part of the "climate change" thing that will someday bite us, hard. Should we send our progeny out to deal with the next disaster unprepared?

You cannot certify that. "The error budget" is not a calculation you have made, while those who DO have the calculation in hand get no such result. Multiple independent error analyses, and multiple searches for hidden variables, have all found human cause and significant heating.

The important principle here, is that an observation in science must be repeatable, i.e. a revelation by the Oracle that is not also received in the dreams of others, is not acceptable. Your testimony, absent any reference to any particular thermometer readings or error model, is not well-described, let alone repeatable.

That certification failed.

Sounds like you should be doing everything that you possibly can to reduce your carbon footprint. Are you?

No, About 70 miles per day in/ out to work. (~6-700 gal. of gas / year. About the same in fuel oil to heat the house in the winter. I do pay extra to get all my electric from the near by wind mills. I feel very self righteous, when I use the electric chain saw to cut up small branches, rather than the gas powered Stihl. :^)

George H.

The problem is that it's not taught in grade school. We now have "participation trophies".